The latest on Hawaiian sovereignty

Now that doesn't seem like such a good idea. Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan proved that history doesn't always move left—and shouldn't.

Center-left leaders like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair have taken a different approach, with considerable political success; but they didn't seem to build lasting majorities for their parties. Clinton's successors as Democratic nominees won 48 percent of the popular vote—close but no cigar. Blair's Labor Party is now running behind the Conservatives by 37 to 31 percent in the most recent British poll. That's not an indication that Labor can't win the next election, which is expected to be held in 2009. But it is an indication that it isn't carrying all before it, as it seemed to during Blair's first two terms, 1997–2005.

Here are two thoughtful takes on what the Democrats should do. Michael Tomasky of the American Prospect argues that Democrats should stand for "the common good." He looks back at what Democrats stood for from the 1930s to the 1960s:

Liberalism was built around the idea – the philosophical principle – that citizens should be called upon to look beyond their own self-interest and work for a greater common interest. This, historically, is the moral basis of liberal governance – not justice, not equality, not rights, not diversity, not government, and not even prosperity or opportunity. Liberal governance is about demanding of citizens that they balance self-interest with common interest.

In contrast, he says, Democrats today "demand that American citizens today believe in only two things: diversity and rights." He calls for Democratic leaders to detach their cause from the party's interest groups and to enunciate a vision of "the common good." Here's his concluding paragraph:

The Democrats must grasp this, kick some old habits, and realize that we are on the verge of a turning point. The Democratic left wants it to be 1968 in perpetuity; the Democratic center wishes for 1992 to repeat itself over and over again. History, however, doesn't oblige such wishes – it rewards those who recognize new moments as they arise. It might just be that the Bush years, these years of civic destruction and counterfeit morality, have provided the Democrats the opening to argue on behalf of civic reconstruction and genuine public morality. If they do it the right way, they can build a politics that will do a lot more than squeak by in this fall's (or any) elections based on the usual unsatisfying admixture of compromises. It can smash today's paradigm to pieces. The country needs nothing less. The task before today's Democratic Party isn't just to eke out electoral victories; it's to govern, and to change our course in profound ways. I'd like to think they can do it. But the Democrats must become republicans first.

Brad Carson, former Democratic congressman from Oklahoma who ran a strong but losing race for the Senate against Tom Coburn in 2004, takes another view. Here is Carson's analysis of the center left's problem:

A coherent political philosophy implies a certain understanding of human nature, of the proper ends of human life. Progressive politics across the world – from Britain's Labor to Germany's SDP to America's Democrats – has no vision of a better world because these deeply philosophical foundations of left-wing politics have eroded over the last 30 years. Events like stagflation and the fall of the Soviet Union played a role in this, but, so, too, did a line of brilliant thinkers like Hayek, Friedman, Buchanan, Stigler, Lucas, Kydler, Prescott, Merton, Miller, Becker, Simon, and Coase, all of whom received Nobel Prizes for their now-accepted apostasies from left-wing orthodoxy.

I fear I'm not doing justice to either of these provocative articles; read them yourself and see. In my view, they do a better job of asking questions than of providing answers. But asking the right questions is often the first step on the road to wisdom.